Is material fraud by attorneys purporting to be agents of an unregistered LLC law firm in a California Court insubstantial?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED In 2014 California implemented the Revised Uniform Limited Liability Company Act, or RULLCA, no longer permitting professional LLCs in California. During California Superior Court litigation, the Petitioner discovered the opposing Nevada LLC law firm member attorneys were engaged in racketeering. Member attorneys and their co-conspirators were using the Nevada LLC enterprise to embezzle trust funds, fraudulently appear, extort a settlement, and launder the proceeds, failing to report California income. Nevada has no income tax and California has the highest in the Nation. When the interstate predicate acts were raised in the Superior Court, Judges disregarded a lack of jurisdiction, deprivation of rights and their oath to uphold the Law, and continued to enable racketeering and extortion in the courtroom. The California Judges, conspiring with the LLC members, destroyed the Petitioner's high-tech business by leveraging a DoD procurement of the ‘highest national defense urgency’, for extortion, harming the Nation and the Petitioner. The Petitioner appealed, to State exhaustion, exposing additional California corruption. The Petitioner then filed a Federal civil (RICO) Complaint, which the District Court promptly dismissed, under the Younger and Rooker-Feldman doctrines, disregarding the fraud and harassment claims, which are settled exceptions to the doctrines. The Petitioner then sought review, only to again be summarily dismissed by the Circuit Court's affirmation, misclassifying material fraud as “insubstantial”, denying the right to be heard. i ! a il The Petitioner presents. four primary questions believed to be the most dispositive: A. Primary Questions 1. Is the material fraud of attorneys purporting in a California Court to be agents of an LLC law firm, unregistered with the California SOS and not permitted in California, insubstantial? 2. Do California Courts lose jurisdiction when an Attorney of Record fails to appear because the Nevada LLC law firm is not permitted in California? 3. Did the California Courts, in permitting a partition complaint to be commenced and maintained without the Parties having ownership title, deprive the Petitioner's right to Constitutional equal protection of the Law? 4. Did the Superior Court, in disregarding the Trust Instrument’s alternative dispute resolution requirement of first submitting the dispute to the Speciai Co-Trustee before filing a petition in Court, deprive the beneficiaries’ right to Constitutional equal protection? B. Selected Subsidiary Questions As pro se Petitioner, inexperienced with the complexities of optimal dispositive questions, a variety of selected subsidiary questions are presented: 5. Did the Superior Court, in denying the right of action for substitution of service of process on ; iii the SOS for an unregistered LLC, deprive the Petitioner of the Constitutional right to due process or equal protection? : 6. Did the Superior Court, in awarding attorney fees to a professional LLC not permitted in the state, deprive the Petitioner of the Constitutional right to equal protection? 7. Is conspiring to enable racketeering in the courtroom a non-judicial act lacking absolute immunity? 8. Did the California Courts, in permitting members of an unregistered LLC law firm to maintain an action, deprive the Petitioner of the Constitutional right to equal protection? 9. Did the California Courts, in permitting licensed attorneys otherwise not permitted by statute to practice Law against the Petitioner, deprive the Petitioner of the Constitutional right to equal protection? 10.Did the Circuit Court, acting on a motion to dismiss by a defendant, in summarily affirming a District Court Judgment made with a defective summons and incomplete service of process, deprive the Petitioner of Constitutional due process? All other subsidiary questions raised in the Complaint, AOB and Mction for Reconsideration, are included by reference.